Dear Bernie,

You chose to run in the the Democratic Party primaries. You are an independent progressive and have been fighting the big money interests for decades. Because of that, get ready to be screwed.

At the highest level, the Democratic Party is run by its big contributors. It has devised a primary system designed to nominate one of its own, Hillary. Really, you have virtually no chance of getting that nomination.

Here is one reason: 30% of all delegates to the convention are "Superdelegates" not chosen by the voters. They are politicians who have succeeded in the big money, Citizens United/McCutcheon system of campaign finance. So far, 451 of the 712 Superdelegates have announced their support of Hillary. Only 19 support you. So she is getting 96% of the Superdelegates. If that continues, she will amass a total of 683 Superdelegates; you will have 29.

Hillary will then will need only 509 of the 1670 delegates chosen by voters. You will need to win 1163 of those delegates.

Hillary can secure the nomination by winning only 30% of the voter-chosen delegates. But you have to earn 70% of those delegates. In other words, you can beat Hillary in the primaries and caucuses by better than 2-1 and still lose the nomination.

"Democratic" Party, indeed.

- Ralphie Buffalo

Antonin Scalia died on February 13. Obama might be able to nominate a justice and have that person confirmed by a Democratic-majority Senate. The Democrats have a reasonably good chance to retake the Senate majority in the November 2016 election (8 seats now held by Dems are up; 17 seats now held by Rs are up). The 2017 session of Congress starts January 3, 2017. Obama does not leave office until January 20, 2017. So he can nominate the next justice during that 17-day period in the 115th Congress and get confirmation from a Democratic-majority Senate, regardless of who wins the 2016 election for President.

Not enough time in January 2017, you say? Obama could nominate much earlier than that, in the 114th Congress, so that all the hearings would be concluded prior to January 2017.

The minority Rs in January 2017 would filibuster, you say? The Democrats could use the "Constitutional option," as they did in 2011 over a bill about Chinese currency manipulation. The filibuster can be eliminated any time a majority in the Senate want to eliminate it. But the Democrats have been exceedingly weak in exercising that authority, when they have had Senate majorities.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/06/harry-reid-senate-precedent_n_9...

The following letter written by OR Progressive Party State Council member, David Delk, was published in the Oregonian January 1, 2016, and calls for the rejection of the Trans Pacific Partnership corporate trade agreement.

Trans-Pacific Partnership:

The Oregonian editorial board thinks "it's tricky to estimate how many jobs are directly tied to trade, much less how many would be created if the (Trans-Pacific Partnership) is signed." Tricky, indeed, when you only account for part of the jobs equation. Missing from this equation is how many jobs will be destroyed as a result of this agreement.

The U.S.-South Korea trade agreement was the last to go into effect. President Obama said that because of increased export opportunities, 70,000 new jobs would be created and that our trade balance with South Korea would improve. Yet since then, our trade deficit with South Korea has grown, meaning that those new jobs never materialized. In fact, during the agreement's first three years, the trade deficit increased by $11.8 billion, meaning the loss of 75,000 good-paying American jobs.

So it is important to ask the right questions. Since the agreement will encourage off-shoring of investments and jobs and will do nothing to stop currency manipulation, the likelihood of a favorable result from the TPP corporate trade agreement is slim. The TPP should be rejected.

The Oregon Progressive Party has begun actively collecting signatures on a new statewide initiative petition (IP 77). This petition would:

• allow Oregon to join the ranks of 46 other states with limits on money in the political process, and
   
• ensure that the actual sources of that money are disclosed to the public.

Oregon is the only state whose constitution has been interpreted to prohibit limits on contributions and expenditures to influence the outcome of elections, be they candidate elections or initiatives/referenda. As a result, Oregon elections are among the most expensive in the nation. The Oregonian reports that only New Jersey campaigns are more expensive on a per capita basis.
 
The chief petitioners are:

• Liz Trojan, State Council, Oregon Progressive Party
• Rob Harris, IPO Caucus, Independent Party of Oregon
• Seth Woolley, Member, Coordinating Committee, Pacific Green Party

We Need Your Help

We need to collect 1,000 valid Oregon voter signatures in order to get a ballot title for the initiative. You can help us with this effort. Please contact David e. Delk, Co-Chair of the Oregon Progressive Party, for instructions and petition sheets. David can be contacted at davidafd@ymail.com or 503.232.5495.

How the Petition Reads

It is a model of simplicity.  It reads:

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Oregon, there is added an Article II, Section 25, of the Constitution of Oregon:

Oregon laws consistent with the freedom of speech guarantee of the United States Constitution may:

1. limit contributions and expenditures (including transfers of money or resources) to influence the outcome of any election; and

2. require disclosure of the true sources and amounts of such contributions or expenditures (a)to the public and (b) in the communications they fund.